go-appimage VS AppImageKit

Snap and flatpak run a daemon to integrate into your system. Appimage has an optional daemon to give you the same integration https://github.com/probonopd/go-appimage

Handles making it executable, automatic upgrades, no need to move it to your $PATH, and adds the application to your app list.

Only other thing you might want to do is symlink a friendly name for cli

It's possible to make appimages that bundle a libc, although most don't. The go-appimage project contains a static build tool that will bundle the linker and wrap executable invocation in that. The intention seems to be providing support on older systems for programs built with a glibc that is too new, but I'm using it to ship a musl binary that can run on glibc systems.

I look forward to watching the FOSDEM talk this weekend, so perhaps getting ahead of myself. But I'm curious whether you think the move in appimage toward static linking would solve some of the hairy issues you pointed out? For example: https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/issues/1193 and https://github.com/probonopd/go-appimage/

AppImage This seems like a convenient way of keeping Wine isolated from rest of the system. However, the documentation is still in research phase for this: https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/Bundling-Windows-applications https://github.com/probonopd/go-appimage https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher https://github.com/sudo-give-me-coffee/wine32-deploy

There's an automatic way to make .desktop entries from appimage, I use https://github.com/probonopd/go-appimage/blob/master/src/appimaged/README.md

There are helper programs to help you manage them and integrate them with the system like other package formats.

their is you can use appimaged https://github.com/probonopd/go-appimage

Would be great if most distros (including Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) would include AppImageLauncher or appimaged by default. Would make it much simpler for most people.

What you're looking for sounds like AppImages (https://appimage.org/) . I have only used them while downloading games from itch.io, etc. (since i prefer package managers) but they seem to work out of the box on popular distros.

Ideally a new instance of the application is installed for each user. This also provides better isolation if one user upgrades/removes/breaks their application instance. I, for one, have really come around to the AppImage model [0] in the last couple of years.

[0] https://appimage.org/

I found a similar issue on github and tried this solution but still getting the same error .

There is AppImage[1], which packs a lot of stuff into a SquashFS filesystem, appends it to the executable, so everything is in one file.

[1] https://appimage.org

Nah i think yall just hating appimage. Real gold standard.

Although I haven't used plugins feature myself yet, this does sound like the perfect use case for them. Not every patient needs to access every single source. With plugins you can load only the source (or few sources) that they actually need. You can still use something like https://appimage.org/ to give them "a single binary", but will actually contain your slim binary and all the plugins.

```dlopen(): error loading libfuse.so.2 AppImages require FUSE to run. You might still be able to extract the contents of this AppImage if you run it with the --appimage-extract option. See https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/FUSE for more information```

This doesn't look like a squashfs image. Cannot mount AppImage, please check your FUSE setup. You might still be able to extract the contents of this AppImage  if you run it with the --appimage-extract option.  See https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/FUSE  for more information open dir error: No such file or directory

appimages. Appimages are similar to flatpaks, exept that they are a file you download and double click to run. Think of them as portable softwares like windows has (portable apps). They are sandboxed too. You can learn more about appimages here